• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Comptroller General of the United States United States Government Accountability Office DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Washington, DC 20548 The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc.; Leidos Inc. File: B-410032.4; B-410032.5; B-410032.6 Date: March 16, 2015 Kara M. Sacilotto, Esq., Rand L. Allen, Esq., Tracye Winfrey Howard, Esq., and George E. Petel, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc.; and James J. McCullough, Esq., Jerald S. Howe, Jr., Esq., Michael J. Anstett, Esq., Samuel W. Jack, Esq., and Aaron T. Tucker, Esq., Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, for Leidos, Inc., the protesters. Gerard F. Doyle, Esq., and Ron R. Hutchinson, Esq., Doyle & Bachman LLP, for L-3 National Security Solutions, Inc., the intervenor. LTC Gregory J. Fike, Max D. Houtz, Esq., and Gregory A. Moritz, Esq., Defense Intelligence Agency, for the agency. Eric M. Ransom, Esq., and Jennifer Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest alleging that the agency unreasonably and disparately evaluated the vendors’ proposals and failed to follow the solicitation’s tradeoff criteria is denied where the agency’s evaluation and source selection was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. DECISION Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc., of McLean, Virginia, and Leidos, Inc., of Reston, Virginia (the incumbent), protest the issuance of a task order to L-3 National Security Solutions, Inc., of Reston, Virginia, by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), under task order request for proposals (TORP) No. HHM402-14-R-0038, for intelligence analysis and support. We deny the protests. BACKGROUND DIA issued the TORP on February 28, 2014, under the agency’s Solutions for Intelligence Analysis II indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract, as a competitive task order acquisition pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) § 16.505. The purpose of the TORP was to procure contractor personnel to provide support to the United States Central Command, Joint Intelligence Operations Center, at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida, and at other locations. The TORP provided for the issuance of a single task order on the basis of an integrated best value evaluation considering management/technical capability, small business participation, and cost/price. The TORP contemplated issuance of a task order to “the offeror who gives the greatest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, the stated requirements;” the solicitation advised that “this may result in an award to the higher rated and/or higher priced offeror.” TORP, Amendment 04, at 4. However, the TORP also provided that “the Government will not make an award at a significantly higher overall cost to achieve slightly superior technical and management features.” Id. The TORP established that the management/technical capability factor consisted of two subfactors: management approach/capability, and technical capability/risk. The agency was to assign each subfactor an adjectival rating on a scale of outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, and unacceptable. The subfactor ratings were then to be rolled up into an overall management/technical capability factor rating, which was to be assigned on the same adjectival scale. The TORP advised that, between the two subfactors, management approach/capability was more important than technical capability/risk. Overall, the TORP advised that the management/technical capability factor was “SIGNIFICANTLY MORE IMPORTANT THAN cost/price in the award decision.”1 Id. (Emphasis original). The evaluation criteria for the management approach/capability subfactor included consideration of the offerors’ detailed approaches to the following: (a) Ability to recruit, provide and retain qualified personnel as detailed in the SOW. (b) Availability of proposed staffing mix and timeline to meet the minimum stated requirements of the SOW staffing levels from date of award in accordance with the fill rate requirements of the SOW. (c) Describe organization/management and proposed management structure and ability to respond to mission changes. (d) Transition risks and how they would be mitigated to include the potential for proposed individuals not being available and measures instituted to mitigate the risk. Provide detail on the Offeror’s recruitment and 1 The small business participation factor was evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. Although small business participation was not assigned a relative weight in the trade-off analysis, the agency did note the offerors’ respective proposed small business participation rates. Page 2 B-410032.4 et al. retention strategy to meet the specific requirements of the SOW and to maintain full staffing levels for the duration of the task order performance. (e) Plan to obtain and provide the additional analytic support required to support the surge described in paragraph 1.3 of the SOW. Id. at 6-7. The evaluation criteria for the technical capability/risk subfactor concerned “[a]n assessment of the Offeror’s ability to demonstrate their substantial depth and breadth of experience, knowledge and capability in performing work similar to that described in the SOW.” Id. at 7. The agency received four responsive proposals by the TORP’s closing date. After evaluation of the proposals, the agency issued the task order to L-3. That task order was then protested at our Office. In response to the protests, the agency decided to take corrective action consisting of amending the TORP, reevaluating the proposals, and making a new best value decision. Accordingly, our Office dismissed the protests. Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc., B-410032, Aug. 4, 2014; Leidos, Inc., B-410032.2, B-410032.3, Aug. 4, 2014. Subsequent to the dismissal of the protests, the agency’s source selection evaluation board (SSEB) reconvened and reevaluated the original proposals. The agency then decided to establish a competitive range of Booz Allen, L-3, and Leidos, and enter into discussions. Each offeror submitted two rounds of revised proposals, including a final proposal revision (FPR). The SSEB reviewed the FPRs and prepared a final technical evaluation report. The final SSEB ratings of the FPRs were as follows: Booz Allen L-3 Leidos Management/Technical Capability Good Outstanding Acceptable Management Cap. Outstanding Outstanding Good Technical/Risk Good Outstanding Acceptable Small Bus. Participation Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Evaluated Price $177,403,247.16 $193,128,769.81 $162,933,333.44 SSEB Report, at 2. The source selection authority (SSA), in the source selection decision (SSD), reviewed the SSEB report and agreed with its findings. In conducting the best value tradeoff analysis, the SSA compared L-3’s highest-rated proposal against each of the lower-priced, lower-rated proposals, and concluded that L-3’s proposal represented the best value, notwithstanding the significant price difference. Specifically, the SSA concluded in each case that the technical superiority of L-3’s proposal warranted payment of that proposal’s much higher price, where the TORP Page 3 B-410032.4 et al. provided that the management/technical capability factor was significantly more important than cost/price in the award decision. The agency notified the offerors of the decision to issue the task order to L-3 on November 24. Both unsuccessful offerors requested debriefings. The agency provided a written debriefing to Booz Allen on December 3, and answers to additional questions on December 5. Leidos also received a written debriefing on December 3. These protests followed. DISCUSSION Booz Allen and Leidos each present multiple challenges to the agency’s evaluation and award decision. Each protester alleges that the agency erred in its evaluation of the protester’s own proposal, and engaged in disparate treatment favoring L-3. The protesters also each assert that the agency’s best value decision was inconsistent with the TORP’s evaluation criteria, and that the evaluation record is inadequately documented. Booz Allen’s Protest Allegations Booz Allen first asserts that the agency unreasonably awarded multiple separate strengths to L-3’s proposal for individual aspects of its transition, recruitment, and retention plans, while awarding Booz Allen only one strength covering transition, recruitment, and retention. Booz Allen argues that because its proposal contained what it contends were similar strategies to recruit and retain personnel, and substantiation of a similar historical retention rate, it was disparate and unreasonable for the agency to award additional strengths to L-3 without also awarding equivalent strengths to Booz Allen. Booz Allen also alleges that the agency’s contemporaneous evaluation record fails to document a rationale for the disparate evaluation results, and that the agency improperly relies on post hoc rationalizations in defending its evaluation. Specifically, Booz Allen objects to two “additional” strengths awarded to L-3, as follows: The SSEB determined [that L-3’s] [DELETED] staffing approach is a sound strategy. [DELETED]. Their successful [DELETED] staffing approach engenders the confidence of the SSEB and increases the likelihood of successful contract performance. [. .] [L-3]'s employee development approach includes [DELETED]. [DELETED], this approach is viewed as advantageous to the government and will likely improve contract performance.

Load more

  9

Copy Link